Category Archives: Conservatives

Foxes are guarding the hen house in Obama’s America. Three days ago, on March 25, 2015, an Illinois National Guardsman and his cousin were arrested for planning a mass terror attack on a military facility in Joliet, Illinois. The Chicago Tribune reports, March 27, 2015, that federal authorities say Hasan and Jonas Edmonds had been aspiring terrorists for months when they arrived at the Joliet Armory on Tuesday to scout out a brazen attack.

Hasan Edmonds, 22, a specialist with the Illinois National Guard who had trained at the Joliet Armory since 2011, talked with his cousin, 29-year-old Jonas Edmonds, and an accomplice about where the soldiers might be stationed inside, which rooms to avoid and the firepower that would be required, according to prosecutors. Hasan then went into the low brick building to pick up a military training schedule for Jonas, who was going to carry out the attack later wearing his cousin’s uniform and carrying AK-47s and grenades.

If all had gone according to plan, the body count could reach 150.

What the cousins didn’t know was that the accomplice was an undercover FBI informant. In fact, federal agents had been tracking them since late last year when Hasan exchanged Facebook messages with an agent posing as a militant about his desire to travel to the Middle East to join the Muslim jihadists Islamic State or ISIS.

The plot unraveled Wednesday evening as FBI agents arrested Hasan Edmonds , at Midway Airport as he prepared to board a flight to Detroit and on to Cairo to join terrorist fighters overseas. Two hours later, Jonas Edmonds was arrested at his home in an Aurora subdivision. Both are charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization, which carries up to 15 years in prison on conviction.

Meanwhile, news of the charges shocked neighbors and left some acquaintances scratching their heads. Felisha Allen, a onetime stepmother to Hasan Edwards, told the Tribune she was stunned to hear the allegations against the man whom she had raised. Describing the man who was plotting mass murder as “a good person” who was drawn to the unity of the Islamic faith, Allen said, “Something like this is hard to grasp. Is it a dream? I don’t even know what to believe.”

The cousins attended West Aurora High School, according to district spokesman Tony Martinez. Hasan Edmonds graduated in 2011. while Jonas Edmonds left school as a senior in 2004. That same year, Jonas Edmonds and two others were charged in suburban Atlanta in the armed robbery of a McDonald’s restaurant, court records show. He pleaded guilty in 2005, was sentenced to 15 years in prison and released in June 2010.

Court records show Hasan Edmonds’ father, Lieukennye Edmonds, 46, is serving a prison sentence for failing to register as a sex offender stemming from a 1990s conviction for the attempted sexual assault of an Aurora woman.

Lt. Col. Brad Leighton, a spokesman for the Illinois National Guard, said Hasan joined the guard in August 2011 and was a supply specialist — responsible for ordering uniforms and other equipment — with the Joliet-based 634th Brigade Support Battalion. He last drilled with the guard for a weekend this month.

Leighton said federal authorities recently informed the guard that Hasan was under investigation, leading them to take “discrete but concrete steps” to ensure he didn’t have access to equipment or computers and to give Hasan different duties.

According to the 33-page criminal complaint, the FBI began investigating Hasan Edmonds late last year when agents discovered that he and Jonas Edmonds allegedly had devised a plan for Hasan to travel overseas and use his military training to fight for Islamic State. In several online exchanges, Hasan Edmonds said that if he was unable to get to Syria he would stay in the U.S. and “fight and die here in the name of Allah.” In a message Jan. 30, he told the undercover agent that the best way to beat the U.S. and its Army was to “break their will” and that “With the U.S., no matter how many you kill they will keep coming unless the soldiers and the American public no longer have the will to fight. If we can break their spirits we will win.”

On Feb. 2, Hasan Edmonds contacted the undercover agent again and said his cousin was willing to carry out the attack on U.S. soil. “Honestly we would love to do something like the brother in Paris did,” Hasan Edmonds allegedly wrote in a reference to the January terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine’s headquarters in France in which 16 people were slain.

Last month, Jonas Edmonds began communicating online with another undercover operative who was posing as someone who could help the cousins in their quest to join Islamic State. The cousins met with that purported accomplice Monday to discuss the planned attack on the Joliet military facility. Jonas told the operative that after his cousin left for the Middle East, he planned to purchase weapons, including AK-47 assault rifles and grenades, and then attack the base. The charges brought against the Edmondses are the latest in a string of terrorism-related cases stemming from Chicago’s suburbs, including:

In 2013, federal authorities charged Abdella Ahmad Tounisi, 18, with providing material support to terrorists after he allegedly pledged on a fake recruitment website — secretly operated by the FBI — to join terrorists in Syria. He was arrested at O’Hare International Airport as he was about to board a flight to Turkey. Tounisi, who was 18 at the time, has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

Last year, Mohammed Hamzah Khan, 19, was charged with plotting to join Islamic State after he was arrested at O’Hare, where authorities alleged he and his two younger siblings were about to board a flight to Istanbul. Khan has pleaded not guilty, and his siblings, who are minors, were not charged.

It seems that every day, we are inundated by bad news, including posts published on FOTM.

It gets depressing.

But never fear! I bring you a piece of good news for a refreshing change!

Though U.S. Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc, their votes are very important because in election after election, Catholics consistently voted the way that the majority in the election voted. In other words, the Catholic vote is a swing vote.

But the term “Catholic Democrats” should be and is an oxymoron. Despite church teachings on the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage and on abortion being an un-negotiable “intrinsic evil,” too many American Catholics are and vote Democrat. Even worse, they remained Democrats despite their party openly and publicly denying God three times at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

But that is beginning to change. Catholics, especially white Catholics, are leaving the Democratic Party.

It’s one of the central contradictions of American politics: that there’s no such thing as the “Catholic vote,” yet the Catholics vote still matters.

There’s no “Catholic vote” in terms of Catholics representing an electoral bloc that votes according to what their bishops tell them, or in lockstep with the tenets of their religion. Yet winning Catholic voters has been essential to almost every presidential victory in modern times. And the defection of Catholics voters has played a role in some of the most consequential congressional turnovers in recent history — from 1994 to 2014 — making Catholics the ultimate swing voters. And for Democrats, that could be bad news.

While Catholics have been swing voters since Richard Nixon’s second term, white Catholics are now identifying as Republican by historic margins.According to the most recent polling from the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of white Catholics now favor the GOP, versus 39 percent who favor the Democrats—the largest point spread in the history of the Pew poll. And for the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants (a designation that includes both mainline and evangelical Protestants).

These are ominous signs for the Democrats, evincing a new and growing allegiance with the Republican Party that has long-term implications.

So why are white Catholics abandoning the Democratic Party? There are some long-term trends at play. Steve Krueger, head of the group Catholic Democrats, notes that conservative bishops have been beating the war drums since the George W. Bush administration, even going so far in some cases as to argue that “good” Catholics can’t vote for Democrats because of their support for abortion rights and, more recently, same-sex marriage — which has resulted in an increased politicization of the church.

Stephen Schneck of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies has noted that there’s been a certain “distillation” of the Catholic vote as a record number of presumably more liberal-leaning Catholics — some one-third of those raised Catholic — have left the faith altogether. “More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings,” he wrote.

But neither of these trends explains why white Catholics have abandoned the Democratic Party so suddenly and so dramatically. After all, in 2008 Barack Obama managed to keep his margin of loss of white Catholic voters to John McCain to just 5 points. But four years later, he lost the white Catholic vote to Mitt Romney by a stunning 19 points.

Krueger points to the Catholic bishop’s demonization in 2011 of the “contraceptive mandate” in the Affordable Care Act, and their subsequent ginning up of the war on “religious liberty” — which was joined by elements of the religious right and fused with its war on Obamacare — as another factor helping to drive Catholics toward the GOP. And the numbers bear Krueger out. According to Pew, between 2009 and 2014, the number of white Catholics who said the Obama administration — and by inference the Democratic Party — was “unfriendly to religion” more than doubled from 17 percent to 36 percent.

“The shift in the Catholic vote should really be a wakeup call to the Democrats,” says Krueger. “White Catholics are 18 percent of the electorate and Catholics vote 1 to 2 percentage points above their representation in the overall population. This is a significant voting bloc that now perceives Republicans as being more welcoming to people of faith.”

This morning, at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), announced his 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.

While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Rafael Cruz was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution when he was 14 years old, but claims he “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.” In 1957, 18-year-old Rafael fled Cuba and landed in Austin, to study at the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics. In 2005, Rafael became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is a pastor in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So what does “natural born” citizen of the United States mean?

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” nor is the term found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen.

definition #1: “Natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the child of a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country) … [Maskell (2009), p.5]

But the Heritage Foundation points out that “prior to 2009, the U.S. State Department [had] . . . seeds of doubt regarding the legal status, at birth, of children born in the United States, of alien parents who are in the United States temporarily or illegally.”

Definition #2: “Natural born citizen” also means a foreign-born child of U.S.-citizen parents

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

But James Madison, in 1795, expressed concern that someone might erroneously infer from the 1790 Act that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Sen. John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

definition #3: A foreign-born child of a non-U.S. citizen parent cannot be a “natural born citizen”

Then there is the question of whether both the mother and father must be U.S. citizens for their foreign-born child to be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen:

According to federal case law prior to 1898, U.S. citizenship at birth was based on the principle ofpartus sequitur patrem or offspring follows the status of the father.

The Supreme Court inInglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen.

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of “natural born citizen”, but it never became law. As of today, there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen. Even if there were such a statute, it would most likely be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. Only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has to date refused to specify what “natural born” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means. Alternatively, a definition of “natural born citizen” can be supplied via a Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz may be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen according to Definition #2 only if #2 refers to a foreign-born child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Ted Cruz is definitely not a “natural born” U.S. citizen under either Definition #1 or Definition #3.

Ted Cruz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, so he knows full well the above. And yet it was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.

Now you know why the GOP never contested Barack Obama’s suspect “natural born” citizenship — he who supposedly was born in Honolulu, Hawaii (but document forensics experts say his Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent) of a U.S. citizen mother but a Kenyan father who was then a subject of Great Britain because Kenya was then a British colony.

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders.If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.

The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administrationbecause, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

Leading pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood encouraged the Democrats on the panel to reject the bill, by claiming babies are not born alive after abortions in Colorado.

That is a lie.

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recorded 1,298 cases of infant death in the U.S. due to “Other perinatal conditions,” which includes ICD-10 category P96.4, death subsequent to a failed “termination of pregnancy.” Put in simpler English, that means babies had been born alive after “botched” abortions, but were left alone in a room, to slowly die from starvation and neglect.

“If passed, HB 1112 would have required abortionists to provide medical care for a child born alive during a failed abortion. Currently in Colorado, there are no state requirements instructing an abortionist to provide any type of medical attention to the infant,” says Sarah Zagorski of Colorado Citizens for Life. “It is incredibly disappointing that members of the Committee failed to pass this common-sense bill that would protect infants who survive failed abortions. The infants that would have been protected under HB 1112 are viable babies in the second and third trimester of pregnancy and deserve the highest quality medical care possible.:

In the United States, 30 states have laws similar to HB 1112 and the legislation has received bipartisan support.

In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law a federal version of this pro-life legislation, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA). That is the same bill that when he was an Illinois State senator, Barack Obama had thrice voted against. Imagine how heartless and soul-less he must be to vote again and again for infanticide.

If you live in Colorado, please contact your representative and if they opposed the legislation, let them know you are disappointed that they voted against protecting innocent infants. Additionally, if your representative voted in favor of the bill please call and thank them for defending life.

Here are the bad guys – the 7 members of the Colorado House committee, all Democrats, who voted in favor of infanticide by voting against HB 1112:

Note that the good guys are all Republicans, which contradicts the assertion that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. (See Kelleigh’s post, “Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right, Part 1.”) That may be true at the national level in Congress (and even here, it’s a gross and unfair over-generalization), but it is certainly not true at the state and local level.

Those who insist Republicans are just as evil as Democrats must answer this question:

Since the U.S. political and electoral system is structurally set up as an effective two-party system, and since the historical record is that third party movements are signally unsuccessful, what are we to do?

The challenge before us is how to get rid of the bad Republicans in Congress, especially those in leadership positions.

By now, for those with eyes that see, ears that hear, and minds that are clear instead of fogged, it is clear that the American Republic is moribund, our Founders’ vision and careful designs upended without a fight, for we are ruled by a self-anointed king instead of a president who answers to the people or their elected representatives.

And yet the latest polls say Obama still has a 49% approval!

During his first term in the White House, Obama was aided and abetted by a Democrat-controlled Congress, which made possible the passage of Obamacare into law.

Last November’s mid-term elections voted in a substantial Republican majority to the House of Representatives, and a slimmer Republican majority to the Senate. But that means nothing to Obama because months before the mid-term elections, he already had declared that “I will act with or without Congress.”

On January 15, 2014, King Obama told Senate Democrats that he plans to use his executive authority to act when Congress stands in his way, that is, without the second branch of the U.S. government. On January 28, 2014, at his 5th State of the Union address, King Obama pronounced to the entire country:

“wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do. (Cheers, applause.) … I’ll act on my own….”

So much for the Founders’ institutionalization of a separation of powers via dividing government into three branches of government — the executive, legislative, and judicial — so that the branches would check and balance each other. In so doing, the Founders believed, government would be prevented from becoming tyrannical, and individual liberty would be ensured and preserved.

True to his words, Obama proceeded to act without Congress in one executive action (executive orders, executive memoranda, presidential determinations, presidential notices) after another, the most malicious of which include:

To all that, Congress willingly and pliantly ceded their constitutional authority by doing nothing.

It is time for the American people to turn our wrath on Congress.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, six ordinary Americans went to the local offices of their respective senator or representative and served them with an “Intent to Repossess” their offices, paid for by taxpayers. The six members of Congress are:

Senator Robert Casey (D-PA)

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Representative Diane Black (R-TN)

Representative John Ratcliffe (R-TX)

Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO)

The Intent reads:

We The People of the sovereign and united States of America, the ultimate sovereigns of the elected tenant of this office (‘Tenant’), which Tenant is bound by law to serve and obey, hereby give formal notice to Tenant that we intend to repossess the Constitution for the United States of America.

We intend to hold Tenant, our sworn public servant, to the letter of the Constitution.

We will offer to Tenant opportunity to cease aiding and abetting organized crime benefitting industry under the guise of performing legislative duties, by Tenant formally agreeing to join the AmericaAgain! Good Guys roster.

Should Tenant refuse to cooperate, instead continuing to aid and abet violations of the U.S. Constitution in collusion with industry and with corrupt executive and judicial branch servants — We The People intend to pursue multi-count felony indictment in the courts of this Sovereign State against defendant Tenant, via the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine™.

The visits to the offices of Casey, et al., were the second batch of visits by members of a new group, AmericaAgain!, founded by David Zuniga, author of This Bloodless Liberty. On January 19, 2015, AmericaAgain! had visited the local offices of:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Rep. Scott Peters (D-La Jolla, 52nd District)

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ, 2nd District)

Rep. Grace Ming (D-NY, 6th District)

At each of the senators’ and representatives’ offices in 11 cities, the AmericaAgain! delegates served them with the Intent to Repossess and a letter informing them about the AmericaAgain! campaign which you can read here. The delegates called on the 5 senators and 6 representatives to sign a public statement of agreement in principle that states:

Whereas, the People themselves are the highest governmental authority in America and according to the opening words of the Constitution, the only human power over that law; and

Whereas, I have been elected by the sovereign citizens of my State or U.S. congressional district to serve and represent them by obeying and supporting the U.S. Constitution; and

Whereas, all three branches of federal government for generations have engaged in violations of that supreme Law of the Land; and

Whereas, the People’s failure to enforce that supreme law in no way constrains them from taking up its enforcement at any time they see fit; and

Whereas, the criminal courts of the sovereign States of this republic must arrest felony crimes perpetrated by residents of their State – whether perpetrated by omission, commission, negligence, abuse of office, ignorance, or other condition – and must apply such sanctions as will address said conditions of perpetrators; and

Whereas, I have no desire to ignore, enable, legitimize, or cover up such crimes committed by Congress, however convenient or cherished the resulting funds may be to the recipients; and

Whereas, I am aware that many federal laws affecting industry and regulatory bodies have been, and are, written by operatives to favor the affected industry, and often voted for by legislators who have not considered — or even read — the bill;

Therefore, I support in principle the 20 legislative reforms put forth by AmericaAgain!, publicly asserting my intention to support such laws drafted by the People as presented to me for co-sponsorship, consideration, or vote, and I will make no attempt to amend, attach riders or earmarks to, or impede the expeditious passage of said reform bills through calendar and committee procedures, as that would constitute obstruction of the sovereign right of the People and States to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s a video explaining AmericaAgain!

So far, not one of the 5 senators and 6 representatives, whom the people had elected to Washington, DC, has the decency to respond. But AmericaAgain! vows to continue until every member of Congress is served notice.

To join this noble campaign to take back our country, visit AmericaAgain! (or go to AmericaAgainNow.com).

President Barack Obama has played hundreds of rounds of golf since being elected into the White House. Our Campaigner-in-chief, who is unfit for the complicated nature of foreign policy, seems to enjoy his vacations while Americans suffer.

But one talented artist has had enough. A new painting by artist Jon McNaughton has been released, which is entitled, “Obama Foreign Policy,” and it’s been creating a slew of controversy.

The artwork depicts Obama smiling mid-swing as he plays a round of golf with a massive nuclear explosion visible in the background:

Wow that is powerful artwork! And it’s not the first time Jon has painted impressive pieces. Often times, his work focuses around patriotism and service to country:

And clearly, he is not a fan of President Obama’s unconstitutional actions. Here is another picture, which shows Obama BURNING the U.S. Constitution:

The art world, which prides itself on being rebellious, has been unusually quiet during the Obama administration. Clearly, Jon didn’t get the memo and is unafraid to speak out against Obama.